Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crawley Moped Roundabout Video


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 09:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Crawley Moped Roundabout Video
A short clip of someone getting hurt is far beneath the suitability for article status on Wikipedia. Surely we are not going to have an article every time a YouTube video gets [insert large number] of views, even if someone in the media reports on it? I support internet meme articles that have stood the test of the time (ie. wasnt forgotten about 2 days later), but this isnt one of them. Remy B 12:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even though I support the growth of the YouTube article, this has one news report (when multiple, independent, reliable, non-trivial, third-party sources are needed), and uses a discussion forum as it's secondary source...which by WP:V and WP:RS is not acceptable. -- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 13:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. -- SB_Johnny | talk 14:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  per nom M  a  rtinp23  14:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Bschott, SB_Johnny, and Martinp23. --HResearcher 02:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Have addressed stated concerns above about sources by adding multiple, verifiable third party sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.116.40 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment There are not multiple, verifiable, reliable, independent third-party publications on this. For one the BBC report just restates the local article, and you have forgotten that multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage. It still fails the given reasons -- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 17:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Response to above comment I disagree. The BBC story may well be the result of secondary research, however the Surrey Online article is a new development and features interviews with the protagonists after the event. These are therefore different sources that inform parts of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.116.40 (talk • contribs) Sign your posts
 * Comment After an IP search, it seems the IP 193.25.116.40 is also the ip of the person whom posted this to YouTube. We may be dealing with WP:V here. -- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Response to above comment If you do some basic research, for example a whois or a visit to this IP's talk page, you'll see that this is part of a bank of IPs used by hundreds of public libraries in the UK. Are you suggesting that this IP posted the original video to YouTube? I'd like to know how you found the IPs from YouTube's servers. Also, the geographical distance between the location of the incident and this IP would suggest to me that you're wrong. The only violation here is your attempt to bend the rules to get rid of an article you don't personally favour. The article is as valid as many other internet meme articles and should stay - your attempt to use the rules around original research have failed and now you're resorting to other tactics. Exactly the kind of thing the wikipedia community can do without. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.116.40 (talk • contribs)


 * Comment' It isn't that hard to get an ip from a user account on YouTube. Now if you are not the exact person, I appologize, however you are making assumptions on motive which you should not do, and this still fails WP:V and WP:WEB, and possibly the sources/citation part of WP:OR -- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 15:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with the benefit of hindsight, talk of this in the media seems to have bubbled under somewhat. Mallanox 23:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. *drew 05:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.